NOVA - Intelligent Design On Trial

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Calgary is near Montreal. It is also not near Montreal.

How was his question an indication of stupidity?

You'll have to explain this one this, Dis. That would be like saying Salt Lake City is near Atlanta.

In the end, Ive run into dozens of smart Americans who would no clue about any sort of Canadian geography. To them Montreal is a country-wide city (because pretty much no matter where you are from, they ask if its near Montreal). They just don't care. I guess i could blame them, but frankly I just stopped caring....

[Dion]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Hey if you were brought up in a religious envoriment - its pretty hard to admit that maybe you were living a lie...besides most religious people follow a pretty good set of moral standards, so let'm be...but its human nature (evolution maybe) to fight for what you believe in..pretty hard to change people...The Theory of Evolution basically trumps all explanations in the bible..no wonder they are threatened...

But the hate is coming from both sides..religion certainly has a good purpose in society, heck even some of the most harden criminals have changed their ways NOT because of science, but because of religion..but i guess you just have to be a certain type of person.

When it is all said in done, most civilized people, religious or not follow a moral standard that has its roots in religion...But something like ID should stay in religious studies class not science...

Best post in this thread!

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Table 5

You'll have to explain this one this, Dis. That would be like saying Salt Lake City is near Atlanta.

In the end, Ive run into dozens of smart Americans who would no clue about any sort of Canadian geography. To them Montreal is a country-wide city (because pretty much no matter where you are from, they ask if its near Montreal). They just don't care. I guess i could blame them, but frankly I just stopped caring....

Near is a relative term.

I am near Calgary.

I am not near Calgary.

Both are true statements.

I'm a geography geek so I probably can't relate to the posters experience with Americans and their knowledge of it.

I got his point though.

[tanguay'sstillgood]

I recorded this show last night, so it's good to see that it's worth my time to watch. Now, I just need the weekend to come so I can find some spare time to do it in.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

But the hate is coming from both sides..religion certainly has a good purpose in society, heck even some of the most harden criminals have changed their ways NOT because of science, but because of religion..but i guess you just have to be a certain type of person.

I don't know about "certainly". Some (me) might say the bad outweighs the good.

Teaching this ID nonsense to children is a crime -- and it's an example of "religion" doing its thing.

For every hardened criminal finding Jesus in the jail cell there are a million people who have suffered needlessly in the name of some doctrine of hocus pocus or another.

[evman150]

Good program. I'm a huge Nova fan, and was glad to see them take this issue on. As usual, Nova did not disappoint.

All in all, pretty shocking stuff. The level to which religion permeates American society is really quite disturbing. I find it interesting that it was not only the pro-ID people who were religious, but also the anti-ID people. The Rehm family, with their bible school and Jesus songs, my goodness. And they are the anti-ID people?

For me, the most shocking part of the episode was the quote by a middle-aged pastor late in the program. He said something along the lines of "the bible is the word of god and i find it very disturbing that my kids are being indoctrinated with ideas like evolution." I was watching with my sister and we both just looked at each other with a shocked look. Just unbelievable.

The American populace as a whole is in absolute intellectual shambles. Yes, the US has an elite that can compete with the best anywhere. But a few elite do not make up for what is most likely the most ignorant society in the developed world.

I watch the program and the main thoughts that come to me are "Boy am I glad I don't live in a place like that" and "I feel so sorry for these poor people". So sad.

[evman150]

One more thing I forgot to add.

Was anyone else offended by the Rehms' being offended by being called atheists? Like being an atheist is tantamount to being a criminal or something.

I for one am proud to be an atheist, proud to have not been baptized, proud to have never attended a church service in my life, proud to be a champion of skepticism and free thought over credulity and oppression.

Somewhere the US went wrong. Somewhere along the line Thomas Paine's ideals were lost forever to be replaced by George Bush's.

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

-Thomas Paine

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by evman150

One more thing I forgot to add.

Was anyone else offended by the Rehms' being offended by being called atheists? Like being an atheist is tantamount to being a criminal or something.

I for one am proud to be an atheist, proud to have not been baptized, proud to have never attended a church service in my life, proud to be a champion of skepticism and free thought over credulity and oppression.

Somewhere the US went wrong. Somewhere along the line Thomas Paine's ideals were lost forever to be replaced by George Bush's.

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

-Thomas Paine

Sadly, the days of enlightenment philosophers setting the rhetorical tone in the American political debate are long, long gone.

You wouldn't believe how many people down here think the U.S. was "founded on Christian principles." It's sad that a country with such a distinguished political and philosophical history has fallen on such hard times in terms of just basic historical literacy.

I blame Fox News. Why? I just need someone to blame.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know about "certainly". Some (me) might say the bad outweighs the good.

Teaching this ID nonsense to children is a crime -- and it's an example of "religion" doing its thing.

For every hardened criminal finding Jesus in the jail cell there are a million people who have suffered needlessly in the name of some doctrine of hocus pocus or another.

1. Freedom of speech isnt a crime. It is a right.
2. Humans cause needless suffering..not religion. Humans would just find something else justify their actions, if there was no religion.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Define Christian principles though IFF.

If we are talking about ethics and morality than it was.

If we are talking about religion then it wasn't.

Lots of terms in this thread being thrown around rather loosely and without qualification.

Be careful. Pollsters aren't.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by evman150

One more thing I forgot to add.

Was anyone else offended by the Rehms' being offended by being called atheists? Like being an atheist is tantamount to being a criminal or something.

I for one am proud to be an atheist, proud to have not been baptized, proud to have never attended a church service in my life, proud to be a champion of skepticism and free thought over credulity and oppression.

Somewhere the US went wrong. Somewhere along the line Thomas Paine's ideals were lost forever to be replaced by George Bush's.

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

-Thomas Paine

Are you proud that you lack tolerance? You feel sorry for people that don't have the same beliefs as you or beliefs you think are crazy....that's just as sad, two sides of the spectrum, both smell of ignorance.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Define Christian principles though IFF.

If we are talking about ethics and morality than it was.

If we are talking about religion then it wasn't.

Lots of terms in this thread being thrown around rather loosely and without qualification.

Be careful. Pollsters aren't.

Well, Christian principles would at least mean that the framers were, or were primarily "Christians," right? They weren't. Franklin was virtually an atheist, having (by the time he helped Jefferson pen the DOI) long since stopped attending church and having also written in his autobiography a criticism that GW Bush would do well to observe: that churches are more interested in making good "christians" than good "citizens" (he said "presbyterians," but the point is the same). Thomas Jefferson was a deist, which is about as humanist as you get. Ditto John Adams. The list goes on, down to enlightenment thinkers like Thomas Paine, and even your Crevecoeurs and de Tocquevilles, etc. etc. These guys just weren't Christians--and to say that they were is just bad history.

Where I think one should "be careful" is in claiming a hard and fast linkage between "Christianity" and "ethics and morality." They aren't the same thing--and one does not come from the other. Were ethics and morality key parts of the polity that Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, etc. created? Sure--but it was an ethics and morality predicated on the rights and liberties of the individual, including the individual's freedom from religious tyrrany and the promise that the state would not be involved in religious practice at all. Was it a "Christian" ethics and morality?

Heck no.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Define Christian principles though IFF.

If we are talking about ethics and morality than it was.

If we are talking about religion then it wasn't.

Lots of terms in this thread being thrown around rather loosely and without qualification.

Be careful. Pollsters aren't.

most civilized people, religious or not follow a moral standard that has its roots in religion [MelB]

I don't think this is true at all. If people truly got their morals from religion, we would be stoning adulterers to death. Ethics have a naturalistic origin - it benefitted society that people did not harm each other.


Ethics and morality are much older than Christ. People don't derive these values from the Bible.

Before Moses spoke to the burning bush, did people really think it was okay to murder and steal?

Hitchens makes this point very well in his opening statement in this debate:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articl...lister-McGrath

The pervasive idea that religion is somehow the source of our deepest ethical intuitions is absurd. We no more get our sense that cruelty is wrong from the pages of the Bible than we get our sense that two plus two equals four from the pages of a textbook on mathematics. Anyone who does not harbor some rudiementary sense that cruelty is wrong is unlikely to learn that it is by reading - and, indeed most scripture offers rather equivocal testimony to this fact in many cases. Our ethical intuitions must have their precursors in the natural world . . . concern for others was not the invention of any prophet. [Harris, p. 172]

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

1. Freedom of speech isnt a crime. It is a right.

By that measure, everyone has the "right" to teach children that the earth is flat, the moon is made of cheese and that it's okay to take off the pants, or anything else they see fit.

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

2. Humans cause needless suffering..not religion. Humans would just find something else justify their actions, if there was no religion.

Now that's a ringing endorsement.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Are you proud that you lack tolerance? You feel sorry for people that don't have the same beliefs as you or beliefs you think are crazy....that's just as sad, two sides of the spectrum, both smell of ignorance.

If you can't recognize how what you are saying does not follow from what I said...then, well. No comment.

Non-sequiturs, false dichotomies...typical fare I guess.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, Christian principles would at least mean that the framers were, or were primarily "Christians," right?

Nope. These principles aren't exclusive to or derived friom Christianity. Christianity adopted them, however, so they are Christian principles and could be labeled a number of other things as well.

Where I think one should "be careful" is in claiming a hard and fast linkage between "Christianity" and "ethics and morality." They aren't the same thing--and one does not come from the other. Were ethics and morality key parts of the polity that Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, etc. created? Sure--but it was an ethics and morality predicated on the rights and liberties of the individual, including the individual's freedom from religious tyrrany and the promise that the state would not be involved in religious practice at all. Was it a "Christian" ethics and morality?

Heck no.

I never claimed that link. However, when you have pollsters asking incredibly general questions like "Was the US founded on Christian principles?" it's pretty hard to answer NO to that question. A YES answer doesn't necessarily equate to all that you have suggested it does though I am sure it does in some cases.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by troutman

most civilized people, religious or not follow a moral standard that has its roots in religion [MelB]

I don't think this is true at all. If people truly got their morals from religion, we would be stoning adulterers to death. Ethics have a naturalistic origin - it benefitted society that people did not harm each other.


Ethics and morality are much older than Christ. People don't derive these values from the Bible.

Before Moses spoke to the burning bush, did people really think it was okay to murder and steal?

Hitchens makes this point very well in his opening statement in this debate:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articl...lister-McGrath

The pervasive idea that religion is somehow the source of our deepest ethical intuitions is absurd. We no more get our sense that cruelty is wrong from the pages of the Bible than we get our sense that two plus two equals four from the pages of a textbook on mathematics. Anyone who does not harbor some rudiementary sense that cruelty is wrong is unlikely to learn that it is by reading - and, indeed most scripture offers rather equivocal testimony to this fact in many cases. Our ethical intuitions must have their precursors in the natural world . . . concern for others was not the invention of any prophet. [Harris, p. 172]

See my reply to IFF above.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

By that measure, everyone has the "right" to teach children that the earth is flat, the moon is made of cheese and that it's okay to take off the pants, or anything else they see fit.



Now that's a ringing endorsement.

1. Yes and thanks for the absurb examples, just helps prove my point.
2. Its true..

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by troutman

most civilized people, religious or not follow a moral standard that has its roots in religion [MelB]

I don't think this is true at all. If people truly got their morals from religion, we would be stoning adulterers to death. Ethics have a naturalistic origin - it benefitted society that people did not harm each other.


Ethics and morality are much older than Christ. People don't derive these values from the Bible.

Before Moses spoke to the burning bush, did people really think it was okay to murder and steal?

Hitchens makes this point very well in his opening statement in this debate:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articl...lister-McGrath

The pervasive idea that religion is somehow the source of our deepest ethical intuitions is absurd. We no more get our sense that cruelty is wrong from the pages of the Bible than we get our sense that two plus two equals four from the pages of a textbook on mathematics. Anyone who does not harbor some rudiementary sense that cruelty is wrong is unlikely to learn that it is by reading - and, indeed most scripture offers rather equivocal testimony to this fact in many cases. Our ethical intuitions must have their precursors in the natural world . . . concern for others was not the invention of any prophet. [Harris, p. 172]

religion is older than christ.
religion didnt start with the bible.
just look at the native americans and their belief systems
and hey maybe i should seperate ethics/morality from religion..i dunno they always have seemed to go hand and hand

[Skyceman]

Originally Posted by troutman

most civilized people, religious or not follow a moral standard that has its roots in religion [MelB]

I don't think this is true at all. If people truly got their morals from religion, we would be stoning adulterers to death. Ethics have a naturalistic origin - it benefitted society that people did not harm each other.


Ethics and morality are much older than Christ. People don't derive these values from the Bible.

Before Moses spoke to the burning bush, did people really think it was okay to murder and steal?

Hitchens makes this point very well in his opening statement in this debate:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articl...lister-McGrath

The pervasive idea that religion is somehow the source of our deepest ethical intuitions is absurd. We no more get our sense that cruelty is wrong from the pages of the Bible than we get our sense that two plus two equals four from the pages of a textbook on mathematics. Anyone who does not harbor some rudiementary sense that cruelty is wrong is unlikely to learn that it is by reading - and, indeed most scripture offers rather equivocal testimony to this fact in many cases. Our ethical intuitions must have their precursors in the natural world . . . concern for others was not the invention of any prophet. [Harris, p. 172]

You can definetly argue the ethics and religion ties but your very argument leaves out the fact that we have a conscience in the first place. A conscience really serves as a detriment to survival and not a mechanism which increases our ability to survive. Survival of the fittest does not have a need for a tool such as a conscience.